Talk:Margaret Atwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New layer of annoyance[edit]

I noticed that there was a recent edit, muddying up the page, by simply button-mashing and just basically spamming the existing text without really adding a single thing, besides a new layer of annoyance. I used the undo feature, and I'll keep an eye on it, as best I can - not sure how to flag it so that an anonymous spammer cannot do the same thing again, however. J. (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stream of consciousness' style?[edit]

I wanted to query the assertion that Margaret Ätwood writes in a 'stream of consciousness' style. This seems to me to rather overstate the case and not be what I would understand by the term (nor Wikipedia's definition for that matter). Anyone else agree/disagree? Mazzy 01:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read something like, 'Atwood frequently uses elements of the literary technique stream-of-consciousness', or something. Atwood does use the technique, or elements of it, occasionally, doesn't she? Or is this just me being undereducated? Lovely_Chris

Radical Revert?[edit]

I hate to be rude, but does anyone else think that the 00:47, 8 February 2006 edit by [1] has made this article difficult to read? It reads like someone's undergraduate essay and is so chock full of enthusiastic adjectives (diligent,undoubtedly,innovative, extraordinary etc) that I just don't know where to start to make it a bit more POV. Also it is written in a very academic style which may be hard to read by general audiences.

I don't want to start off with bad faith by doing massive edits, but I really think this article needs some major work to improve readability and neutral POV. Ashmoo 02:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Governor General's Literacy Award[edit]

Near the bottom of the page, there is a list of Atwood's works, their publication dates and awards received. It says that she won the Governor General's Award in 2000 for her novel The Blind Assassin. This is incorrect. She was a finalist. The winner was Michael Ondaatje for Anil's Ghost. This should be corrected.

Done. 10:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

just a note that it's the Governor General's Literary Award, not Literacy Award! I think it's pretty clear both Ondaatje and Atwood are clearly beyond literate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize[edit]

I've removed a sentence referring to the fact that Atwood has not been awarded a Nobel Prize ("She hasn't won a nobel prize [sic] yet."). It has since been returned, albeit in a slightly different form ("She hasn't won a nobel prize [sic].). Unless some sort of context is provided - a cited recognition that she has been considered, for example - I don't see this statement as meaningful. As it is, one might make the same statement for every other living Canadian witer. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others. Victoriagirl 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the edit that this sĄame editor made to The Handmaid's Tale, I'm forced to conclude that they're just vandalizing things today and have so-warned them.
Atlant 18:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
She was nominated last year: (final sentence)--Teiladnam 07:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The MSNBC article does not say that.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Of course, it's not "last year" anymore.--Teiladnam (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

She's super-cute[edit]

Perhaps that deserves a mention. - Maggie -- 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't. ISAYsorry 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
it certainly doesn't: she isn't, even slightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


Why does every other Internet source that mentions Atwood's personal life comment that she is NOT married to novelist Graeme Gibson (and doesn't intend to) and this article says she married him some time ago. Needs a correction/cite?

Notusip 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it needs a correction, I believe. I can find no reference to her being married to Gibson. Change at will. Sunray 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It is accurate to refer to Gibson as Atwood's common-law spouse. - Maggie -- 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What is your source? Thank you! Lova Falk 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Source would be easy - she's listed as living with him on book jackets going back decades. I believe the law is that you are considered common law after 12 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Tent[edit]

On Margaret Atwoods homepage The Tent is both mentioned as one of her novels and as short fiction. I haven't access to The Tent so I don't know if it is both. Anybody who knows? Lova Falk 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Her biggest achievement: not winning the Nobel?[edit]

The lead paragraph seems very strange to me. Atwood has won many prestigious awards. Is being talked about (among many others) as a potential winner of the Nobel -- but then not getting it or even being formally nominated either year -- really the best shorthand for her notability? Who is she, Erica Kane?

I say replace this reference with a sentence about her Booker, and create a complete "Awards and nominations" section below.

Dybryd 05:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. Dybryd 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


I had heard that she was an article writer for Playboy in the 1960/70s (at the same time as Alex Haley and Ian Fleming). Can anyone confirm that? Indisciplined 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Atwood.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Atwood.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Papist? Something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Though very familiar with the bible, she is not religious and discusses being raised a "strict agnostic" at 7:10 mark here <copyright violation redacted>Codenamemary (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The same interview is available from the original source (not a copyvio) here. --Danger (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Issues[edit]

The sentences, "Hybrid cars still use gas. A subway doesn't." should probably not be at the end of the section about MA's energy-efficient practices. I am removing. Dblanchar (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Remarks from IP[edit]

If, according to this article, "Atwood is among the most-honored authors of fiction in recent history," why does it contain absolutely *no* critical commentary on her work? Go to any Wikipedia article on any second-rate hack novelist. You'll get at least a paragraph on his themes, landmark works etc. Not so with Atwood. This Wiki piece is a travesty. EB —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:43, June 8, 2008

If you feel that the article is deficient, be bold and add a section of critical commentary. It certainly would be a welcome and needed addition. Gimme danger (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that this article would benefit by the addition of such a section. If no one else is up for it, I'll have a go, but first I'll have to unearth some of my old research. --Doclit (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


This list is at least 3 times too long - only the most useful, relevant, and important should stay - but which? Many would be useful as citation instead imo. (add comment under each for pro/anti keeping as ext links):

remove - being a trustee of a non-notable prize is not important imo. This site doesn't add enough to a readers knowledge of Atwood (can be a single sentence mention within article).

remove - can go to specific book articles.

remove - can go to specific book articles.

remove - can go to specific book articles.

Margaret Atwood and Feminism[edit]

This section opens with the following statement: " Margaret Atwood is a part of a long line of strong females in her family." This statement is both ridiculously POV, and hilariously idiotic. (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

God's Gardeners[edit]

The article mentions, 'God's Gardeners (due to be published 2009).' Is there a source for this? If not, it should be deleted. Skoojal (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. For instance: I think there is no need to put a commercial link in the article, so I put it here. --Lova Falk (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If there's a policy regarding commercial links, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to it. Better to use a source for everything, but I won't add it if there's policy against it. Skoojal (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a non-comercial site that mentions it. [2]. And another I added second to article, look more official. Although i'm sure both probably got their info from Amazon :-)Yobmod (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Works section[edit]

I see this entry: Wheel-show (1978-1981) for Times Magazine

I don't know where it fits. Can someone help?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Google got me nowhere so I zapped it.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


A photo would be great in this article. I went to her official website looking for contact info so I could ask her, but could not find it. Any suggestions? Would someone like to write her publisher?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see the photo issue resolved with such pleasing results! --Doclit (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


"While she is best known for her work as a novelist, her poetry is noteworthy." Did anyone read that before they wrote it? It sounds very clumsy. Something along the lines of: "Although Atwood is best known for her work as a novelist, she has also been critically successful as a poet." The phrase "her poetry is noteworthy" sounds ridiculous. Alan16 (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs rewording I think. It does make it sound as though her poetry was little more than a hobby. ClaireReal (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Critical reception"[edit]

Why is "critical reception just about one her books -- and not even one of her novels? zafiroblue05 | Talk 15:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Still in need of a critical commentary[edit]

As in IP remarks from a year ago (above) I agree that the article still needs a critical commentary of her work. It is still more or less a hagiography at the moment. Spanglej (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No soap boxing[edit]

See no soapboxing - we're not here to make political points.

User:Spanglej, if you are going to bark out orders to everyone, even those who were innocent, it would be nice to have a person behind the orders...and maybe some context would be nice. Please sign your comments. We all do. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature, is considered outdated in Canada"[edit]

Substantiation and elaboration is surely required. So-considered by whom? Outdated in what regard? Masalai (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Basic query[edit]

Given that she spent her adolescent years in Leaside, it is presumably Leaside United Church that she amusingly describes in one of her novels. Which novel? Masalai (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


{{Infobox writer}} no longer supports the fields influences and influenced. Its template documentation now instructs (twice): "No longer supported. Please move cited/citable instances into prose."

Here are the current parameter values (cut and paste except bullet points and reflist template):

  1. ^ Henderson, Jack (2007-03-02). "About Jack". Official website. Retrieved 2013-01-29. 

See Talk: Ray Bradbury#Influences/influenced for some more explanation with cross-references.

--P64 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Science fiction[edit]

second of two new sections in one session -P64

Atwood is outspoken in terms of both 'science fiction' and 'speculative fiction' and links to those two articles have some value here, at least in section 4, Atwood and science fiction, as well as the infobox Genres.

At the moment we link Portal:Speculative fiction (which I just added it to the Portal box, and where Portal:Science fiction is a top-level division). We link speculative fiction from both infobox Genres and section 4 prose; we do not link science fiction from either location, only science fiction fandom and social science fiction. I don't know whether the distinction is deliberate or fitting here. There are some workers who strip links from supposedly familiar genre names, sometimes 'science fiction' in particular (recent talk).

One of our Ext links, ISFDB links two other sf sources that may be worth consulting, Atwood at and her entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.

--P64 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

edit request[edit]

In 2012, Margaret Atwood was invited to serve as a mentor for the Rolex Mentor and Protégé Arts Initiative, an international philanthropic programme that pairs masters in their disciplines with emerging talents for a year of one-to-one creative exchange. Out of a very gifted field of candidates, Atwood chose Naomi Alderman as her protégée.[1] RMP2014 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"the theorizing of Canadian identity"[edit]

Is this supposed to mean something? It sounds like the sort of vacuous vagueness common in a certain type of social science: heavy on words and light on intelligibility and meaning. As Spock (Star Trek) might have put it, "It's English, Jim, but not as we know it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^